!!! Black Hole Gravity - speed of gravity

Hi oc I'm laughing because you are asking me for my thoughts instead of
going to Google. I think that is a very smart move on your part.
You now not only want QM foam,but "virtual" foam.(give me a break will
ya) I will work on that however. Lets just stay with your champagne
bubbles,and my beer foam. We are taking the same thing "bubbles" I
remember this guy Glaser(sounds a little like my last name well he
invented the bubble chamber. oc we can't see elementary particles,but
these elementary particles going through liquid hydrogen causes the
hydrogen to boil along their tracts. This leaves a wake of bubbles that
can be observed and measured.. I can't remember if I posted my thoughts
on "sonoluminescence" in this group. In a liquid very tiny bubbles are
not squeezed by the fluid,but collapse like an implosion of a supernova.
This implosion is created by sound waves. Here is the most interesting
part this bubble reaches a temp. of 185,000 F that is hotter than the
sun's surface. That is a lot of compression to get that hot(yes) Now
comes more interesting stuff it now has to expand,and this expansion
could be as fast as "c",but Einstien need not turn over in his jar for a
second would be about a million times to long for this action. These
are some of the dynamic features of foam. Let me add Glaser was
drinking beer and that is how he came up with the bubble chamber. When
I put whipped cream on my Mexican sweet potato pie I'm eating foam I
shaved this morning with foam. The waves washing along the
shoreline turn to foam. Nature uses foam in the sub-micro realm,and man
uses it everyday in his macro world. Bert It was Moby that reminded
me about the waves.

Yeah Bert, i 'member that rap about sonoluminescence. Here's a website
on it-
www.sonoluminescence.com/

Sonoluminescing bubbles make a great analogy of the quantum foam and
'sea of particles'. There has to be that energetic *underlying medium*
to drive the bubbles into forming.

String theory imputes such a vibratory underpinning to space. But since
the 'no medium' mandate is in place, this presents quite a conundrum
reconciling the 'Something that is yet Nothing.' So they gotta invent
some curled-up "extra dimensions" embedded in the 'Nothing'.
oc

Yeah Bert, i 'member that rap about sonoluminescence. Here's a website
on it-
www.sonoluminescence.com/

Sonoluminescing bubbles make a great analogy of the quantum foam and
'sea of particles'. There has to be that energetic *underlying medium*
to drive the bubbles into forming.

String theory imputes such a vibratory underpinning to space. But since
the 'no medium' mandate is in place, this presents quite a conundrum
reconciling the 'Something that is yet Nothing.' So they gotta invent
some curled-up "extra dimensions" embedded in the 'Nothing'.
oc

Sorry. It's just that in the news reports of Fomalont's measurements they
kept citing that Earth would not know of the sun's sudden absence for 8
minutes - this conjured up a mental picture of a "wave front of gravity"
continuously emanating from the sun.

I found info on gravity waves at:
http://www.physicscentral.com/action/action-02-8.html .

Of course now I seek clarity as to what you guys think Formalont was trying
to detect if it wasn't "gravity waves" being affected by Jupiter's gravity.



"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
From Aunt Buffy:

OK...here is my summary of conclusions:
1. The jury is still out on the speed of
gravity and/or speed of gravity
propogation/waves.
2. Thus the question of whether gravity
and "gravity waves" are the same thing
is mute until point 1 is resolved.

Even under the void-space model, the distinction between gravity and
"gravitational waves" should be perfectly clear (even for Jb).
'Thought experiment'- suppose you have a massive body like a neutron
star sitting alone in space, not accreting anything, just sitting there
quietly. Is it radiating 'gravitational waves'? Obviously not.
Pretty soon another neutron star comes wandering by
and gets captured, and now you have a co-orbiting pair, which *is*
radiating GWs, as appears to be the case in the Hulse-Taylor pulsar,
for instance.
If Jb still thinks gravity and GWs are the same
thing, then he's dumber than a box of rocks. oc

Sorry. It's just that in the news reports of Fomalont's measurements they
kept citing that Earth would not know of the sun's sudden absence for 8
minutes - this conjured up a mental picture of a "wave front of gravity"
continuously emanating from the sun.

I found info on gravity waves at:
http://www.physicscentral.com/action/action-02-8.html .

Of course now I seek clarity as to what you guys think Formalont was trying
to detect if it wasn't "gravity waves" being affected by Jupiter's gravity.



"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message
...
From Aunt Buffy:

OK...here is my summary of conclusions:
1. The jury is still out on the speed of
gravity and/or speed of gravity
propogation/waves.
2. Thus the question of whether gravity
and "gravity waves" are the same thing
is mute until point 1 is resolved.

Even under the void-space model, the distinction between gravity and
"gravitational waves" should be perfectly clear (even for Jb).
'Thought experiment'- suppose you have a massive body like a neutron
star sitting alone in space, not accreting anything, just sitting there
quietly. Is it radiating 'gravitational waves'? Obviously not.
Pretty soon another neutron star comes wandering by
and gets captured, and now you have a co-orbiting pair, which *is*
radiating GWs, as appears to be the case in the Hulse-Taylor pulsar,
for instance.
If Jb still thinks gravity and GWs are the same
thing, then he's dumber than a box of rocks. oc

From Aunt Buffy:

I found info on gravity waves at:
http://www.physicscentral.com/action/action-02-8.html .
...now I seek clarity as to what you guys
think Formalont was trying to detect if it
wasn't "gravity waves" being affected by
Jupiter's gravity.

Fomalant was trying to measure the 'speed of gravity', which has nothing
to do with 'gravitational waves', Buffy.

Just as electromagnetic(EM) radiation arises from oscillating charges.
GW radiation arises from oscillating masses (or co-orbiting masses like
binary neutron stars or binary black holes, or from massive events like
a supernova going off or a BH collapse). Try a Google under 'binary
black hole merger' and
'black hole ringdown' for some real insight into GW generation. You'll
probably find some audio simulations of GW signatures.
Clearly, Fomalant's experimant on the 'speed of gravity' did not in any
way involve 'gravitational waves'. Try a Google on 'LiGO' and 'LISA'.
These are projects designed specifically to look for GWs. GWs have not
yet been *directly* detected, but circumstantial evidence for them has
been. Google for 'Hulse-Taylor Pulsar'. oc

From Aunt Buffy:

I found info on gravity waves at:
http://www.physicscentral.com/action/action-02-8.html .
...now I seek clarity as to what you guys
think Formalont was trying to detect if it
wasn't "gravity waves" being affected by
Jupiter's gravity.

Fomalant was trying to measure the 'speed of gravity', which has nothing
to do with 'gravitational waves', Buffy.

Just as electromagnetic(EM) radiation arises from oscillating charges.
GW radiation arises from oscillating masses (or co-orbiting masses like
binary neutron stars or binary black holes, or from massive events like
a supernova going off or a BH collapse). Try a Google under 'binary
black hole merger' and
'black hole ringdown' for some real insight into GW generation. You'll
probably find some audio simulations of GW signatures.
Clearly, Fomalant's experimant on the 'speed of gravity' did not in any
way involve 'gravitational waves'. Try a Google on 'LiGO' and 'LISA'.
These are projects designed specifically to look for GWs. GWs have not
yet been *directly* detected, but circumstantial evidence for them has
been. Google for 'Hulse-Taylor Pulsar'. oc

"Dave" wrote in message
...
While this may be at odds with the interpretation of
GR on the "speed of gravity", it is a fact. If it's not, and space is
a "void", then we're stuck with "fossil fields", 'virtual gravitons',
virtual photons, angels, imps, and Sky Pixies. oc

Bill,

The currently accepted models of most of the forces use virtual particles,
yet you continue to ridicule the idea without giving a better explanation.
As for gravity, what is this thing that's flowing? Is it subject to
turbulance? Is the gravitational attraction an object experiences related
to
its shape, in the same way cars and aeroplanes are?
How does the model yo advocate explain the Casimir effect?
The simple fact is, qed is one of the fields where theory and experiment
agree to a higher level of accuracy than most others. Yet it relies on
virtual particles. How?


DaveL

Dave,
Trying to get any explanation from Bill about Flowing Space Model is
frustrating. He has a set of phrases that he uses but he can't come up with
a working model, nor can he work with his model to come up with explanations
of effects.

Bill is desperately short of knowledge about physics (at one point he
thought that the effect of the charge on an electron would be less than that
of a proton 'because the electron has less mass'); so any attempt to discuss
basics comes to naught.

The fundamentals of the Flowing Space Model are that there is an aether,
that it accelerates in the vicinity of matter and as it accelerates it
supplies a force on matter. The speed of light is contant with respect to
the aether.

To explain away the Michelson Morley result, the model proposes that the
earth 'entrains' the aether, so that somehow it slows down ahead of the
earth, and speeds up behind it so that it always hits the earth's surface at
a constant speed of 11.2km/s (this being the escape velocity at the earth's
surface). However, the model has the same problem as all non-relativistic
solutions; and entrainment gives some particular problems of its own, like
why we don't see the postions of stars move as their light passes through
the zone of 'entrainment' ahead of Jupiter or the Moon - there should be
refraction as the light slows down and speeds up again through this zone.

Quite reasonably, Bill asks how QM and GR can be accommodated in the same
model; however he believes that the FSM is the only model that provides an
integration of both and can't be persuaded that it is a flawed model in
itself.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
While this may be at odds with the interpretation of
GR on the "speed of gravity", it is a fact. If it's not, and space is
a "void", then we're stuck with "fossil fields", 'virtual gravitons',
virtual photons, angels, imps, and Sky Pixies. oc

Bill,

The currently accepted models of most of the forces use virtual particles,
yet you continue to ridicule the idea without giving a better explanation.
As for gravity, what is this thing that's flowing? Is it subject to
turbulance? Is the gravitational attraction an object experiences related
to
its shape, in the same way cars and aeroplanes are?
How does the model yo advocate explain the Casimir effect?
The simple fact is, qed is one of the fields where theory and experiment
agree to a higher level of accuracy than most others. Yet it relies on
virtual particles. How?


DaveL

Dave,
Trying to get any explanation from Bill about Flowing Space Model is
frustrating. He has a set of phrases that he uses but he can't come up with
a working model, nor can he work with his model to come up with explanations
of effects.

Bill is desperately short of knowledge about physics (at one point he
thought that the effect of the charge on an electron would be less than that
of a proton 'because the electron has less mass'); so any attempt to discuss
basics comes to naught.

The fundamentals of the Flowing Space Model are that there is an aether,
that it accelerates in the vicinity of matter and as it accelerates it
supplies a force on matter. The speed of light is contant with respect to
the aether.

To explain away the Michelson Morley result, the model proposes that the
earth 'entrains' the aether, so that somehow it slows down ahead of the
earth, and speeds up behind it so that it always hits the earth's surface at
a constant speed of 11.2km/s (this being the escape velocity at the earth's
surface). However, the model has the same problem as all non-relativistic
solutions; and entrainment gives some particular problems of its own, like
why we don't see the postions of stars move as their light passes through
the zone of 'entrainment' ahead of Jupiter or the Moon - there should be
refraction as the light slows down and speeds up again through this zone.

Quite reasonably, Bill asks how QM and GR can be accommodated in the same
model; however he believes that the FSM is the only model that provides an
integration of both and can't be persuaded that it is a flawed model in
itself.

From OG:

The old coot asks how QM and GR can
be accommodated in the same model;
however he believes that the FSM is the
only model that provides an integration
of both and can't be persuaded that it is
a flawed model in itself.

Well then old chap, the onus is now on you to demonstrate a better
model.. of _literal causation_ , not downstream descriptions of effects.

..entrainment gives some particular
problems of its own, like why we don't
see the postions of stars move as their
light passes through the zone of
'entrainment' ahead of Jupiter or the
Moon - there should be refraction as the
light slows down and speeds up again
through this zone.

The refractiom or bending _was_ demonstrated by Eddington in the 1919
solar eclipse. How much refraction do you expect so see around low-mass
objects like Jupiter or the moon? Much less, how much differential do
you expect to see 'ahead' vs. 'behind'? In the split second it takes for
a ray of light to pass by say, Jupiter, how far does the planet
translate laterally? You're being a little silly really.

..(at one point he thought that the effect
of the charge on an electron would be
less than that of a proton 'because the
electron has less mass'); so any attempt
to discuss basics comes to naught.

Egg on face for sure with that one. Score one for OGster. Hubba hubba.
But again you're demonstrating your penchant to dwell in details and
particulars while _hiding from_ the overview, 'big picture' that deals
in EXPLANATIONS OF CAUSATION rather than downstream descriptions of
effects. Certainly one can recite effects till he's blue in the face,
but it has no relevance to causation.

So if you can demonstrate a better model, then put it up. The floor is
yours___________ . oc